CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. W2000-02953-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2002

Shirley Schulze, A/K/A Shirley Schulze Vires v. Jere Steven

Shirley Schulze filed a claim against the estate of Sam Vires, seeking compensation for personal caregiving services rendered to the decedent. Despite a long-term romantic relationship and cohabitation, Shirley and Sam were never legally married, and Sam's will did not include Shirley as a beneficiary. The trial court denied her claim, ruling that her services were rendered gratuitously and lacked an express or implied agreement for payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, concluding that vague expressions of intent to 'take care of' Shirley did not constitute a contract for services. The court emphasized that recovery cannot be based solely on the expectation of an inheritance without a valid contract.

Estate LawContract LawImplied ContractGratuitous ServicesCaregiver CompensationTestamentary ProvisionWill ContestProbate LawCohabitationQuasi-Contract
References
5
Case No. 06-22-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Cynthia Martin v. Hopkins County, Hopkins County Judge Robert Newsom, Hopkins County Commissioner Mickey Barker, Hopkins County Commissioner Greg Anglin, Hopkins County Commissioner Wade Bartley, and Hopkins County Commissioner Joe Price

Cynthia Martin raised ultra vires claims against Hopkins County officials regarding an agreement with a private company to build a solar power plant. Martin contended the agreement was a tax abatement under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 381, Section 381.004(g), which she argued did not comply with the Texas Tax Code provisions. The County and officials asserted the agreement was a grant of public money under Section 381.004(h), thus not governed by the Texas Tax Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the County. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the agreement was for a grant of public funds, not a tax abatement, because the developer was obligated to pay all ad valorem taxes, and the payments from the county were program grants calculated with reference to those paid taxes, not a reduction or nullification of the tax liability itself.

Ultra Vires ClaimsEconomic Development AgreementTax AbatementPublic Funds GrantTexas Local Government Code Chapter 381Texas Tax Code Chapter 312Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract ConstructionStatutory Construction
References
39
Case No. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2015

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission Commissioner Andres Alcantar Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton And Commissioner Hope Andrade

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. (RMS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and its commissioners regarding a determination that caregivers were employees of bank trusts, not RMS, for unemployment tax purposes. RMS sought judicial review of the TWC's decision and alleged ultra vires acts by the commissioners for misinterpreting the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review claim, ruling that the statutory waiver of immunity applied only to unemployment benefits disputes, not tax liability. However, the court reversed and remanded the ultra vires claims, finding that while the commissioners were not solely bound by a 'control test,' RMS should have an opportunity to amend pleadings to demonstrate a specific statutory violation or lack of legal authority. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, allowing RMS to re-plead the ultra vires claims.

Unemployment Tax LiabilitySovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ClaimTexas Labor CodeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCaregiversBank TrustsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. E2009-01694-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2011

William (Bob) Simerly v. City of Elizabethton

William (Bob) Simerly and Lewis Honeycutt, former employees of the Elizabethton Electric System, sued the City of Elizabethton to recover post-retirement health insurance benefits. These benefits were based on "Labor Codes" resulting from collective bargaining agreements between the EES Board and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment to the Retirees, affirming the validity of the contracts. However, the Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the EES Board lacked the statutory authority to enter into such collective bargaining agreements, rendering the Labor Codes ultra vires and void from their inception according to long-standing Tennessee municipal law and public policy. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Municipal AuthorityCollective Bargaining AgreementsEmployee Welfare BenefitsContract ValidityUltra ViresStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawPublic UtilitiesSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. M1999-00342-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2000

Professional Engineering Services v. City of Red Boiling Springs, TN

This case involves a dispute between Professional Engineering Services (PES) and the City of Red Boiling Springs (City) regarding a contract for engineering services for a new water treatment facility. PES sued the City for breach of contract, alleging that the City contracted with PES for preliminary and design work but later breached the agreement. The City contended that no valid contract existed due to PES's failure to obtain required approvals. The trial court initially found in favor of PES, awarding damages for breach of contract and, alternatively, for quantum meruit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's finding of a valid contract, determining the agreements were ultra vires. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's alternative holding that PES was entitled to recover in quantum meruit for the valuable services provided to the City.

Contract LawBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitMunicipal LawUltra ViresEquitable RemediesAppellate ProcedureLocal Government AuthorityEngineering ServicesWater Treatment Facility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Southern Electronics Co., Inc.

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,475 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational